• Journal of the Korean Institute of Gas
• /
• v.23 no.4
• /
• pp.46-64
• /
• 2019

Technical practice code, KGS GC101 2018, for explosion hazard area selection and distance calculation of gas facility was enacted and implemented from July 12, 2018. This code includes whole contents of IEC60079-10-1 2015 (Explosive atmospheres Part 10-1: Classification of areas - Explosive gas atmospheres), and clarifies the interpretation of ambiguous standards or adds guidelines for standards. KGS GC101 is a method for classifying explosion hazard place types: (1) Determination of leak grade (2) Determination of leakage hole size (3) Determination of leakage flow (4) Determination of dilution class (5) Determination of ventilation effectiveness, finally (6) Determination of danger place (7) Explosion The range of dangerous places can be estimated. In order to easily calculate this process, the program (KGS-HAC v1.14, C-2018-020632) composed by Visual Basic for Application (Excel) language was produced by Korea Gas Safety Corporation. We will discuss how to use codes and programs to select and set up explosion hazard zones for field users.

• Korean Chemical Engineering Research
• /
• v.58 no.3
• /
• pp.493-497
• /
• 2020

Hazardous area classification is designed to prevent chemical plant explosions in advance. Generally, the duration of the explosive atmosphere is used for zone type classification. Herein, IEC code, a quantitative zone type classification methodology, was used to achieve Zone 2 NE, which indicates a practical non-explosion condition. This study analyzed the operating pressure of a vessel handling propane to achieve Zone 2 NE by applying the IEC code via MATLAB. The resulting zone type and hazardous area grades were compared with the results from other design standards, namely API and EI codes. According to the IEC code, the operating pressure of vessels handling propane should be between 101325-116560.59 Pa. In contrast, the zone type classification criteria used by API and EI codes are abstract. Therefore, since these codes could interpret excessively explosive atmospheres, care is required while using them for hazardous area classification design.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Safety
• /
• v.33 no.4
• /
• pp.21-29
• /
• 2018

In many companies handling flammable liquids, explosion-proof electrical equipment have been installed according to the Korean Industrial Standards (KS C IEC 60079-10-1). In these standards, hazardous area for explosive gas atmospheres has to be classified by the evaluation of the evaporation rate of flammable liquid leakage. The evaporation rate is an important factor to determine the zones classification and hazardous area distance. However, there is no systematic method or rule for the estimation of evaporation rate in these standards and the first principle equations of a evaporation rate are very difficult. Thus, it is really hard for industrial workplaces to employ these equations. Thus, this problem can trigger inaccurate results for evaluating evaporation range. In this study, empirical models for estimating an evaporation rate of flammable liquid have been developed to tackle this problem. Throughout the sensitivity analysis of the first principle equations, it can be found that main factors for the evaporation rate are wind speed and temperature and empirical models have to be nonlinear. Polynomial regression is employed to build empirical models. Methanol, benzene, para-xylene and toluene are selected as case studies to verify the accuracy of empirical models.

• Applied Chemistry for Engineering
• /
• v.32 no.1
• /
• pp.102-109
• /
• 2021

Recently, an interest in risk calculation methods has been increasing in Korea due to the establishment of classification code for explosive hazardous area on gas facility (KGS CODE GC101), which is based on the international standard of classification of areas - explosive gas atmospheres (IEC 60079-10-1). However, experiments to check for leaks of combustible or toxic gases are very difficult. These experiments can lead to fire, explosion, and toxic poisoning. Therefore, even if someone tries to provide a laboratory for this experiment, it is difficult to install a gas leakage equipment. In this study we find out differences among actual experiments, CFD by using FLACS and calculation based on classification code for explosive hazardous area on gas facility (KGS CODE GC101) by comparing to each other. We develpoed KGS HAC (hazardous area classification) program which based on KGS GC101 for convenience and popularization. As a result, actual gas leak, CFD and KGS HAC are showing slightly different results. The results of dispersion of 1.8 to 2.7 m were shown in the actual experiment, and the CFD and KGS HAC showed a linear increase of about 0.4 to 1 m depending on the increase in a flow rate. In the actual experiment, the application of 3/8" tubes and orifice to take into account the momentum drop resulted in an increase in the hazardous distance of about 1.95 m. Comparing three methods was able to identify similarities between real and CFD, and also similarities and limitations of CFD and KGS HAC. We hope these results will provide a good basis for future experiments and risk calculations.